Contents

Discipline for Home and School, Book One (Third Edition)

Chapter 27
Juvenile Corrections and RTP: How It Works at
Catalina Mountain School

Bill Lackman
RTC Teacher
Catalina Mountain School, Tucson
Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections

I first met Ed Ford in 1995, when he was hired as a consultant by the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. After surveying our educational system, Ed chose Catalina Mountain School (CMS) in Tucson, a maximum security facility for juveniles, as the location in which to pilot his responsible thinking process (RTP) in a juvenile corrections setting. This had never before been attempted, so it was an intriguing experiment for all of us, and a wonderful opportunity to share our findings with other professionals in juvenile corrections. I began to understand that if our project were successful, we could help enormously across the country by serving as a viable model for others who serve adjudicated, neglected, and delinquent youth.

Soon after Ed had made his first visit to CMS to meet and speak with the faculty, I was asked to leave my position as an instructor in another program to structure and operate the CMS responsible thinking classroom (RTC). I was at first hesitant; however, this opportunity was too good to ignore. Sonia Vernon, assistant principal at CMS, was designated to act as RTP Administrator, and we began to work together to decide where and how to begin.

We knew that training the faculty was the next logical step, so Ed returned to CMS. All faculty members were trained in the use of RTP and were provided with a basic understanding of PCT during scheduled in-service prior to implementation, and Ed and I spent time together discussing how the RTC should be arranged and operated. Once we were all adequately grounded in RTP and had a firm understanding of our roles as faculty members and administrators beginning this new process, we were ready to present the project to the facility administrators, managers, housing unit staff, and students. We accomplished this by meeting with individual administrators, attending and reporting progress and concerns at management team and faculty meetings, and giving presentations to each housing unit's staff and students. At every point, we encouraged questions and communication. Procedural guidelines for RTP were established and discussed, and expectations of all parties were outlined prior to implementation.

In addition to securing administrative support, placing the right people in key positions, and insuring that sufficient training occurs, there are other critical elements which need to be put in place in order to make implementing RTP as smooth a process as possible. Understanding that adaptations in the program structure will occur, it is still helpful to identify and produce as much of the organizational structure as possible in the beginning. For example, I found it very useful to produce a flow chart (shown on page 174) tracking a student through the RTC experience. This chart enables a more immediate understanding of the process by both staff and students.

Creating linkages across the facility, whenever possible, helps to build the infrastructure that can support your efforts over the long term. At CMS, establishing these linkages helped to lead toward a more team-based approach to addressing youth behavior in the school setting. I began to furnish each housing unit lead teacher with a weekly feedback form indicating which students attended RTC during that week and how many visits they made (whether through making improper choices leading to RTC referral or on a "Chill-Out" pass (time-out) basis. (A sample pass is shown at the end of this chapter.) Once we began to transfer RTP into the housing units, both education and housing unit staff were able to have a more global perspective on each youth's conduct in multiple settings. I hope to reach the point soon where each youth referred to the RTC must present his plan(s) to his housing unit Multidisciplinary (Treatment) Team for final approval and follow-up. This occurs sometimes now, but not with the consistency I wish to see. Although the connection between education and housing units is not yet complete, I am certain that we will make steady improvement through continued training and support, and maintaining our shared vision that responsible thinking promotes success.

As a result of creating a link with our Crisis Management Team (CMT), both the security and education departments have begun to share data through the RTC. In building the RTC in the early stages, I looked for ways to measure effectiveness of the program and what impact RTP might have on our facility. I established baselines in a number of different areas, including a comparison of the total number of security calls in both education and housing units. Comparing the year prior to implementation to the first year following implementation shows a 52% reduction in security calls to education and a 42% reduction in security calls to housing units. The difference can be heard and seen: classrooms and housing units are quieter and more effective. The linkage between education and CMT has thus yielded a new way of looking at what we do and how we do it, and it has spurred further interest in assessing this data. For example, I now send three copies of my RTC monthly report to the CMT for their use. And 11 other persons in various departments receive copies, as well.

By using a portion of the monthly report as an educational evaluation tool, we can identify or confirm those students having the most difficulty in their classrooms. This information is available weekly in our student study team, but looking at the monthly trend focuses on the more protracted cases. In the tables below, for example, you will see that a very small number of students accounted for a significant number of RTC visits in two successive months.

It is interesting to note that at every location where RTP has been implemented, a "J-curve" effect, as shown in the tables above, has been demonstrated. That is, a relatively small number of students account for a large portion of total disruptions. To understand that the most troubled children can be identified for more intensive treatment is a very enabling characteristic of RTP.

Sharing information such as this with all who have interactions with these students can lead to more cohesive, and therefore more effective, treatment for the students. One particularly interesting case involved Frankie. His frustration was clearly observable in all of his classes. Even though he was intelligent and talented, he was highly disruptive, abusive, and uninterested in anything to do with academics. Consequently, Frankie chose to attend the RTC on an al-most constant basis over a period of a couple of months. At first openly defiant, Frankie began to respond appropriately to questioning and to see that his choices were starting to cost too much. This occurred after the first month of frequent attendance. Through a process of practicing his plan in school and exploratory conversation in the RTC, he be-gan to develop an idea of what he wanted. He soon found an opportunity to try his idea, and he never looked back. He learned how to cook in our food service program, and when I last heard, he was working as a chef at a local resort. He also served as RTC monitor for his housing unit while at CMS, and his difficulties in the classroom virtually disappeared.

I have seen another positive effect of disseminating this data throughout the facility. Kids are naturally drawn to visual information, and I have observed that our students are paying increasingly more attention to the graphs and charts I produce for the RTC monthly report. Several are exhibited in the RTC, and not a day goes by without students commenting on them. This in turn has engendered a competitive spirit among the students, and they consistently ask me, "Who has the most RTC's this month, Mr. Lackman?" Housing units have also responded well by having one or more students act as RTC monitors. That is, these students track who attended the RTC from their housing unit each week, and how many times they attended. This has been a very supportive action and has helped to strengthen RTP at CMS by increasing the awareness of the process among the more responsible students.

We have come a long way in establishing an effective discipline program at CMS since we first implemented RTP in August 1996. It has been difficult and frustrating at times, but the results we have observed have been worth every bit of the effort. The classroom environment has been im-proved for everyone, with significantly fewer disruptions. Expectations are clear for everyone. We have established key linkages across the facility and are continuing to nurture them, as well as creating others. Each RTC monthly and annual report adds to our unique and functional database, and I continue to look for productive ways to use the information and to make it accessible to others. What has been most gratifying, however, is observing how RTP has helped us build better relationships with our students, and how they have more frequently chosen to think responsibly.

I look forward to improving RTP at CMS during this next year, and I plan to emphasize additional training and connections across the facility. An immediate goal is to strengthen the link between RTP and our Multidisciplinary (Treatment) Teams. This will enhance the wrap-around care philosophy of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. A second emphasis will be directed toward sharing this successful model with the other schools in our Department. A program which yields such positive results needs to be shared.

Catalina Mountain School is no longer using RTP. Many schools that adopt this process, even those that are successful, stop using it. The reasons are many. Administrators move on, leaving no one to drive the process and protect its integrity. Or an administrator decides to "improve" the process, returning to cause-effect thinking and ultimately destroys the foundation that was built. Or RTC teachers lose the "front office" support and the team relationships so necessary to the success of the process. In one instance, the school board insisted, as a condition of employment, that the new administrator support the process. She agreed, but with little understanding of RTP and no understanding of PCT, the underlying theory that protects the integrity of the process, things soon fell apart.

Thus, slowly but surely, without the support and understanding of both RTP and PCT by a school's administrator, cause-effect thinking begins to creep back into the ways the staff deals with students. A new playground or cafeteria supervisor establishes her own style of "handling those kids." Or newly hired teachers, fresh from learning cause-effect ideas in college, attempt to use the RTC as a dumping ground or detention center for disrupting students. Or a new administrator arrives with different priorities. As one superintendent told a principal who had successfully reduced school suspensions by 60% in one year using RTP, "Now that you've got this school under control, when are you going to get rid of "that" room?" It is sad to listen to the frustrations of teachers telling how their classrooms have returned to the high levels of disruption experienced prior to their success with RTP. It truly is very sad.

To locate a accredited RTP school that you can visit, check the RTP web site, www.responsiblethinking.com, for an up-to-date list. Often, I recommend visiting schools that have been evaluated but haven't quite reached the level of accreditation; to learn about schools in your area that are implementing RTP, contact RTP, Inc., 10209 N. 56th Street, Scottsdale, Arizona 85253. Phone 480 991-4860. Or contact me on the internet, at ed@edford.com.